1,700 dead (not all KIA mind you, a number of those are from accidents) is an extremely low number for a 2 year long war, even when most of it is low-intensity.
I do highly HIGHLY doubt the validity of your editor buddy's claim of 1,700 in one day of Vietnam.
However, the example I use is that we lost 3,000 KIA in the battle for Iwo Jima, nearly twice that of the entire 2 year war in Iraq. I picked the battle not because it was the bloodiest battle ever, but for its mediocrity when compared to the other big battles of WW2. We payed TWICE the cost of the entire nation of Iraq over 2 years for one stupid ass island in the middle of nowhere in only a few weeks in WW2 which we all agree was a worthwhile conflict.
That is the kind of thing that puts it all in perspective I think. People don't understand what 300,000 american men killed look like compared to 1,700, to them anything over 10 dead people look the same. I find that you can more easily help people understand by comparing what we're paying now to how little progress we got from the same payment in WW2.
Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that 1,700 dead men and women is not a big deal; war is a big deal. What I am saying is that there have been many "bigger deals" in the past and there will unfortunately but undoubtobly be much "bigger deals" in our future. Gaining the correct perspective is imperitive to choosing the best course of action.